Analysis of Total Allowable Catches in the north-east Atlantic for 2018
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Analysis of Total Allowable Catches in the north-east Atlantic
for 2018
20 February 2018
Background
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) entered into force on 1st January 2014 and includes a requirement to
end overfishing, with legally binding targets and deadlines. The CFP establishes in Article 2(2) that “in order
to achieve the objective of progressively restoring and maintaining populations of fish stocks above
biomass levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield, the maximum sustainable yield
exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the
latest by 2020 for all stocks”.
At the Fisheries Council on 11th to 13th December 2017, EU fisheries ministers decided upon Total
Allowable Catches (TACs) for most fish stocks in the north-east Atlantic for 2018. This should have resulted
in Council agreeing to TACs that end overfishing, because the CFP allows for postponing the 2015 deadline
only in exceptional cases, when meeting it “would seriously jeopardise the social and economic
sustainability of the fishing fleets involved” (CFP Recital 7) and requires all overfishing to end in 2020
without exception. With the 2015 deadline passed and 2020 only two years away, Council needed to make
substantial progress towards ending overfishing in 2018 by setting TACs not exceeding scientific advice.
This document analyses the Council decisions on 109 TACs set in north-western European waters for 2018
and the extent to which these decisions contribute to ending overfishing by not exceeding the scientific
advice on fishing limits.
Summary
In November 2017 Pew analysed the European Commission proposal on TACs for 2018, published on 7th
November 2017. The analysis found that 58 percent of the TACs proposed by the Commission (43 of 74)
did not exceed the scientific advice1. This was a small improvement on the previous year’s proposals where
just over half of the TACs proposed did not exceed scientific advice. We note that even if the Commission
proposal were adopted by the Council in full, it would have been insufficient to end overfishing in 2018.
During the December Council fisheries ministers continued to agree TACs for 2018 that were above the
scientific advice. 44 percent of TACs analysed (48 of 109) were set exceeding the scientific advice. This is a
reduction from 54 percent (60 of 111) set exceeding advice in 2017, and 57 percent set exceeding advice in
20162 (Figure 1).
1
See Pew response to Commission Proposal. Figures based on analysis of the original proposal (7th November 2017), excluding any subsequent non-
public proposals made in Council Working Group ‘non-papers’.
2
Based on Pew analysis of Total Allowable Catches in the north-east Atlantic for 2017. In 2018 the analysis excludes Dab and flounder in areas 2a
and 4, because the TAC was removed in early 2017; and, Anchovy in areas 9, 10 and CECAF 34.1.1, because ICES could not give advice on catches.
1Analysis of Total Allowable Catches set in the north-east Atlantic for 2018
Figure 1 – How TACs set by the Council in north-western European waters compare with the
scientific advice on fishing limits (2016-18).
Fisheries ministers made good progress in terms of the percentage of TACs set at or below advice in
relation to the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) exploitation rates. Of the TACs where scientific advice on
MSY exploitation rates was available, 72 percent (52 of 72) were set not exceeding the scientific advice for
2018, compared to 55 percent in 20173.
Where the scientific advice on fishing limits was not followed, neither the Commission nor any member
states publicly presented socio-economic evidence to justify further delay in reaching MSY exploitation
rates.
Despite the progress made compared to previous years, the outcome of the December Council continues
to highlight fisheries ministers’ reluctance to end overfishing. With only two TAC cycles remaining before
the CFP’s 2020 deadline is reached, this analysis highlights the importance of progressive proposals on
fishing limits from the Commission in 2018 and 2019, and the need for the Council to make significant
progress in setting TACs in line with the CFP’s requirements for 2019 and 2020 if the EU is to realise the
benefits of ending overfishing.
Lack of transparency continues to make it difficult to analyse the extent to which the Council set fishing
limits in line with the scientific advice. Examples of insufficient transparency include: lack of public
information on TAC adjustments (“top-ups”) to account for the landing obligation (LO), and incomplete
information on how the Commission transforms scientific advice on fishing limits into TACs (e.g. stock and
TAC area mismatch). To determine if the TACs adjusted to account for the LO were in line with scientific
advice, it was necessary to make assumptions about the level of ‘adjustments’ and area mismatches. The
analysis nevertheless indicates that fishing opportunities for some TACs, either subject to or partially
subject to the LO, were set at levels that exceed scientific advice.
3
Pew analysis of Total Allowable Catches in the north-east Atlantic for 2017.
2Analysis of Total Allowable Catches set in the north-east Atlantic for 2018
1 European Commission proposals on north-east Atlantic TACs for 2018
Under Article 43(3) of the Treaty of the functioning of the European Union, fishing opportunities are
proposed by the European Commission and agreed by the Council by qualified majority vote. On 7th
November 2017 the Commission proposed4 74 TACs for fish stocks in northern waters5 and southern
waters6 of the north-east Atlantic7.
58 percent of TACs proposed (43 of 74) did not exceed the scientific advice on fishing limits8. However, for
27 TACs the Commission proposed fishing limits that exceeded the scientific advice. The Commission
proposal was a small improvement on the previous year’s proposal (27th October 2016), where just over
half of the TACs proposed (35 of 69) did not exceed the scientific advice9.
For the vast majority of TACs with scientific advice on the MSY exploitation rate, the Commission proposed
fishing limits not exceeding the scientific advice. Nevertheless, there were several instances where the
Commission proposed TACs exceeding the scientific advice for stocks where MSY fishing limits were
recommended, these included: herring in areas 6a (south), 7b and 7c10; herring in areas 5b, 6b and 6a
(north); megrims in area 7; megrims in areas 8abde; and common sole in area 7a.
For a further 45 TACs, no proposal was published by the Commission on 7th November. These were
described as "pm" (pro memoria). Reasons that TACs were not proposed included: they are for stocks
shared with third countries and consultations were yet to conclude; because the scientific advice had not
been received at the time the proposal was created; or because the Commission evaluation of the
scientific advice was still ongoing.
Between the publication of the proposal on 7th November and the Council meeting on 11th to 13th
December, the Commission presented additional TAC proposals, methodologies for adjustments to
account for the LO, and proposed measures for European seabass stocks and the endangered European
eel. These proposals were presented to Council as “non-papers” and were not made available to the public
until after the decisions on fishing opportunities for 2018 had been made.
In summary, the Commission proposal on fishing limits for 2018 proposed many TACs exceeding scientific
advice, including for several stocks with scientific advice on the MSY exploitation rate. Even if the
Commission proposal were adopted by the Council in full, it would have been insufficient to end
overfishing in 2018. The Commission continues to provide insufficient public information on their full
proposals, contributing to the overall lack of transparency in the TAC setting process. See Pew’s response
to the Commission’s proposal for a more detailed analysis and our recommendations.
4
COM(2017) 645, Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,
applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters. Articles, Annex I, Annex II-VIII.
5
58 in northern waters: Atlantic Ocean west of Scotland and Ireland, and adjacent waters including the Irish, Celtic and North seas.
6
16 in southern waters: Bay of Biscay, Iberian waters, Azores grounds and Union waters of CECAF.
7
For some TACs the Commission made further proposals to Council through “non-papers” without making them readily available on the Council
website until after the decisions on fishing opportunities for 2018 had been made (e.g. 14317/17 - Regulation on Atlantic and North Sea TACs and
Quotas for 2018 non-paper with updates). This lack of accessibility prevents stakeholders from conducting analyses of the Commission’s
proposals in a comprehensive manner.
8
See Pew response to Commission Proposal. Figures based on analysis of the original proposal (7th November 2017), excluding any subsequent non-
public proposals made in Council Working Group ‘non-papers’.
9
In many cases it can be difficult to assess the extent to which the Commission’s TAC proposals follow the scientific advice. For many stocks there
are mismatches between the geographic areas used by ICES in its assessment of a fish stock and the areas covered by a TAC. In these cases Pew
assesses whether TACs are set exceeding or not exceeding the scientific advice based on assumptions about how the Commission has arrived at the
proposed TAC from the scientific advice, for example how scientific advice on catches for stocks are apportioned to TAC areas and whether overall
the proposed TACs exceed the total maximum catch advice for the stock.
10
ICES advice for 2018 is for a zero TAC and for a discontinuation of the scientific monitoring TAC advised upon by ICES in 2016.
3Analysis of Total Allowable Catches set in the north-east Atlantic for 2018
2 Fisheries Council TAC decisions for 2018
Based on the Commission proposal, at the Fisheries Council on 11th to 13th December 2017 EU fisheries
ministers decided upon 143 TACs in the north-east Atlantic11, including stocks that are subject to
negotiations with third parties.
119 of the 143 TACs are within the scope of this analysis12. Scientific advice on fishing limits was available
for 10913 out of the 119 TACs. This section analyses the Council’s decisions on those 109 TACs.
The 109 TACs for which scientific advice was available fall into two categories (see Figure 1):
61 TACs (56 percent) were set not exceeding scientific advice.
48 TACs (44 percent) were set exceeding scientific advice.
o For several TACs the fishing limits set are significantly higher than the scientific advice. These include
whiting in areas 6, 5b, 12 and 14 (~19 times the advice), whiting in area 3a (~6 times the advice),
sprat & associated bycatches in area 3a (~4 times the advice), pollack in area 7 (~3 times the advice),
and cod in the Kattegat (~2.5 times the advice).
o 9 TACs were set despite scientific advice for zero catches: herring in areas 5b, 6b and 6a (north);
herring in areas 6a (south) and 7bc; northern prawn in areas 2a and 4; picked dogfish14 in areas 1, 5-
8, 12 and 14; and, common sole in area 7a. This also includes 4 TACs subject to a joint statement by
the Council and the Commission agreeing to maintain TACs unchanged unless the perception of the
status of these stocks changes significantly (i.e. “statement stocks”)15: whiting in area 7a; blue ling in
area 3; blue ling in areas 2a and 4; and plaice in areas 7hjk.
o 15 TACs for “statement stocks” had scientific advice to reduce catches compared to the TACs set for
2017. 13 of these TACs were maintained at the same levels, whilst greater silver smelt in areas 3 and
4 was increased by 20 percent and another TAC (sprat in areas 7de) was only reduced by 20 percent
instead of the 43 percent advised by ICES.
72 out of the 109 TACs had specific advice on fishing rates that correspond to MSY (FMSY/FMSY proxy), and fall
into two categories:
52 TACs (72 percent of 72 TACs) were set not exceeding advice16. 17 of these 52 TACs had been set
exceeding advice for 2017. These include cod in areas 2a, 3a and 4; cod in area 7d; cod in the Skagerrak;
cod in area 7a; cod in areas 7bc,e-k, 8, 9, 10 and CECAF 34.1.1; megrims in area 8c, 9, 10 and CECAF
34.1.1; haddock in area 7a; whiting in areas 2a and 4; ling in areas 3a-d; plaice in area 7a; turbot & brill
in areas 2a and 4; common sole in areas 2a and 4; common sole in area 7d; common sole in areas 7fg;
common sole in areas 8ab; horse mackerel in areas 2a, 4a, 5b, 6, 7a-c, 7e-k, 8abde, 12 and 14; and horse
mackerel in area 8c.
11
Annex IA –Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 - fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127.
12
Northwestern European waters. This excludes some TACs from Annex IA of the TAC regulation which are not in EU waters (e.g. Barents Sea and
Icelandic waters), are in Greenland and ultra-peripheral waters (e.g. Madeira waters), and/or are grouped TACs as ‘others’ or ‘industrial’ species.
13
This excludes TACs for skates and rays (x5) and anchovy in areas 9, 10 & CECAF 34.1.1 – where scientific advice was published by ICES but advice
on the catch limits associated with the TAC was not determinable. This also excludes TACs for herring in area 7ef; plaice in areas 5b, 6, 12 and 14;
saithe in areas 7, 8, 9, 10 and CECAF 34.1.1; and common sole in areas 5b and 6, where no scientific advice on catch limits is provided by ICES.
14
ICES advise that there should be no targeted fisheries and that any possible provision for the landing of bycatch should be part of a management
plan, including close monitoring of the stock and fisheries. Our analysis assumes this means zero catches, however, there is some ambiguity
introduced in the ICES advice around annual catch levels that may allow the stock to increase at a rate close to that estimated with zero catches.
15
Council document PECHE 491, 15502/15 REV1. Joint statement by the Council and the Commission "Ad Specific Data Limited Stocks", which fixes
TACs at the same levels until the end of 2018, unless the perception of the status of these stocks changes significantly.
16
For stocks subject to the Landing Obligation, total TACs agreed were compared to catch advice when the LO covers all the fisheries exploiting that
stock. This is the case for pelagic species; northern prawn in areas 2a and 4 and area 3a; Norway lobster in area 3a, areas 8abde, areas 8c, 9, 10
and CECAF; haddock in areas 2a, 3a, 4, areas 5b and 6a, areas 6b, 12 and 14. When the LO is only applicable to a fraction of the fisheries
exploiting the stock, the corresponding TACs have the top-up (adjustment) quantities removed and are compared to the ICES landings advice.
Estimated top-up quantities applied to TACs by the Council are based on best available information. The Commission has not published tonnages
of the TAC top-up (adjustments) agreed by Council since setting fishing opportunities for 2018.
4Analysis of Total Allowable Catches set in the north-east Atlantic for 2018
20 TACs (28 percent of 72 TACs) were set exceeding advice. These include TACs for herring in areas 6a
(south), 7b and 7c; herring in areas 5b, 6b and 6a (north); herring in areas 7ghjk; haddock in areas 7b-k,
8, 9 and 10; whiting in areas 7b-k, 8, 9 and 10; whiting in area 7a; hake in areas 8c, 9, 10 and CECAF
34.1.1; lemon sole & witch in areas 2a and 4; ling in area 4; ling in areas 6-10, 12 and 14; Norway lobster
in areas 5b and 6; plaice in the Skagerrak; plaice in areas 2a and 4; plaice in areas 7hjk; mackerel in
areas 2a, 3a-c and 4; mackerel in areas 5b, 6, 7 and 8abde; mackerel in areas 8c, 9, 10 and CECAF 34.1.1;
common sole in area 3a; common sole in areas 7hjk; and common sole in area 7a.
o 5 of the 20 TACs appear to have been set not exceeding advice for 2017, meaning a step backward in
terms of sustainable management and meeting the CFP’s objectives17.
18
o 5 of the 20 TACs had advice for zero catches in 2018 which was not followed .
In summary, 44 percent of TACs set by Council for European stocks in the north-east Atlantic region (48 of
109) exceeded the scientific advice on fishing limits; this is a reduction from the 54 percent that exceeded
the scientific advice in 2017. Of the TACs where scientific advice on MSY exploitation rates was available,
28 percent (20 of 72) were set exceeding the scientific advice for 2018, compared to approximately 45
percent in 2017. We conclude therefore that there has been some incremental progress towards the
Article 2(2) MSY objective of the CFP when compared to previous years. However, where the scientific
advice on fishing limits was not followed, neither the Commission nor any member states publicly
presented socio-economic evidence to justify further delay in reaching MSY exploitation rates.
3 Transparency issues hindering full accountability on TAC setting
Pew notes a number of important transparency issues that continue to impede an assessment of the
extent to which Council sets fishing limits in line with the scientific advice.
a. TAC adjustments (“top-ups”) to account for the landing obligation
The LO is being implemented gradually between 2015 and 2019. During 2018 the LO will continue to apply
to all pelagic fisheries, and to additional components of specific demersal fisheries. This means that for
some TACs (i.e. 28 pelagic TACs) the LO covers all fisheries, but for some TACs the LO covers only some
fisheries.
The information provided by the Commission and Council on TAC adjustments is insufficient to
comprehensively analyse whether these adjustments and associated TACs were set in line with scientific
advice. In particular for TACs partially subject to the LO further information would be required to assess if
the TACs (including adjustment) are above scientific advice. Pew’s assessment of whether TACs are set in
line with scientific advice is made on the basis of data obtained through an access to information request
made after the Council19.
Pew is concerned about the lack of peer review and scientific scrutiny when calculating the TAC
adjustments. Moreover, it should be transparent how TAC adjustments are calculated, taking into
consideration whether a stock is fully or partially under the landing obligation (i.e. if the obligation applies
only to some areas, some fishing gears, and/or if exemptions are applied). We urge the Commission to
make the methodology and proposed TAC adjustments for each applicable TAC publically available before
the December Council. Following the Council meeting, it should be made clear how TAC adjustments were
finally calculated and applied for each TAC. The agreed TAC including any potential adjustment should
under no circumstances exceed the scientifically advised maximum catches and should provide an
incentive to fish more selectively.
17
Herring in areas 7ghjk; haddock in areas 7b-k, 8-10; whiting in areas 7b-k, 8-10; Norway lobster in areas 5b and 6; common sole in area 3a.
18
Herring in areas 6a (south), 7b and 7c; herring in areas 5b, 6b and 6a (north); whiting in area 7a; plaice in areas 7hjk; and, common sole in area 7a.
19
Non-papers ST 14915 2017 (24 November) and ST 15422 2017 (5 December): Updates to Commission proposal COM(2017) 645 for a Council
Regulation fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union
vessels, in certain non-Union waters.
5Analysis of Total Allowable Catches set in the north-east Atlantic for 2018
b. Stock and TAC area mismatch
For many stocks there are mismatches between the geographic areas used by ICES in its stock assessments
and the areas covered by a TAC20. Unfortunately, this means that it is not always possible for stakeholders
to ascertain to what extent scientific advice has been followed for some TACs. Pew would welcome
improved transparency on how the Commission arrives at the proposed TAC from the scientific advice, for
example, how scientific advice on catches for stocks are apportioned to TAC areas, and how total catch
advice is respected in relation to the LO and the adjustments made.
4 Specific provisions undermining sustainable fishing
Pew is concerned about decisions made during the Fisheries Council which could undermine the
sustainability of several stocks in 2018.
a. Landing obligation adjustments (“top-ups”) and scientific advice
As stated in Section 3 (above), it is not possible to fully analyse the extent to which TACs set by Council and
subject to the landing obligation (LO) follow the scientific advice. However, the following analysis indicates
that for some TACs subject to the LO, fishing opportunities exceed the scientifically advised levels and that
for some other TACs partially subject to the LO, this might also be the case.
There are 45 TACs for demersal stocks under the LO in 2018. Of these:
10 demersal TACs are subject to the LO, covering all the relevant fisheries, and were not partially
adjusted to account for the LO. It is therefore possible to assess whether these TACs are in line with
scientific advice on total catches:
o 9 TACs were set not exceeding scientific advice on total catches.
o 1 TAC was set exceeding scientific advice on total catches: northern prawn in areas 2a and 4.
24 demersal TACs are subject to the LO, but covering only some fisheries, and were partially adjusted to
account for the LO. Based on the information available it is not possible to assess whether these
adjustments are in line with scientific advice. Therefore it is only possible to analyse TACs after the
adjustments21 are removed:
o 17 TACs appear to have been set not exceeding the scientific advice on total landings before the
adjustments (“top-ups”) were applied.
o 7 TACs appear to have been set exceeding scientific advice on total landings before the adjustments
(“top-ups”) were applied.
8 demersal TACs are subject to the LO, but covering only some fisheries, and did not include
adjustments:
o 3 TACs were set not exceeding scientific advice on total landings: hake in area 3a, hake in areas 2a
and 4, and common sole in areas 8ab.
o 1 TAC was set exceeding scientific advice on total landings: anglerfish in areas 8abde.
o 4 TACs were set exceeding scientific advice on total catches, and all are part of the “statement
stocks” agreement: common sole in areas 7bc, common sole in areas 7hjk, plaice in areas 8, 9, 10
and CECAF 34.1.1 and sole in areas 8cde, 9, 10 and CECAF 34.1.1.
3 demersal TACs are subject to the LO but do not have any scientific advice and are part of the
“statement stocks” agreement: plaice in areas 5b, 6, 12 and 14; saithe in areas 7, 8, 9, 10 and CECAF
34.1.1; and, common sole in areas 5b, 6, 12 and 14.
20
See for instance - Client Earth, 2016. Mismatch between TACs and ICES advice.
21
Data on adjustments are from Council Working Party non-papers ST 14915 2017 (24 November) and ST 15422 2017 (5 December): Updates to
Commission proposal COM(2017) 645 for a Council Regulation fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters.
6Analysis of Total Allowable Catches set in the north-east Atlantic for 2018
b. TACs subject to the joint statement on data-limited stocks
In 2013 the Council and Commission agreed to fix 26 TACs at the same levels until the end of 2018 unless
the perception of the status of any of these stocks changed significantly according to scientific advice (joint
statement by the Council and the Commission "Ad Specific Data Limited Stocks"22).
The agreement has served as a barrier to ending overfishing for several years, allowing TACs to be
continually set higher than the scientific advice (see Section 2). Pew welcomes the end of the period of
applicability of the agreement, and urges the Commission and the Council to make continued progress
towards ending overfishing by setting all TACs hitherto covered by the statement not exceeding the
maximum levels advised by ICES for future years.
c. TAC footnotes – ‘bycatch provisions’
For several years, certain TACs have included footnotes allowing for bycatches of a specified quantity (in
percentage, i.e. 2% or 5%) of non-target species (e.g. whiting, mackerel, haddock and boarfish) to be
caught in pursuit of the target TAC.
The Commission continued to propose ‘bycatch allowance’ footnotes for several TACs in 201823. The
proposed ‘bycatch allowance’ footnotes now refer to the interspecies flexibility provision of the CFP
(Article 15(8) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013). This specifies that bycatches of species counted against
the quota pursuant to Article 15(8) shall, together, not exceed 9% of the quota. Article 15(8) also requires
the associated non-target stocks to be within safe biological limits. This is an improvement on the ‘bycatch
allowance’ footnotes agreed for 2017, which did not require stocks of non-target species to be inside safe
biological limits, as the law requires.
The Council accepted the Commission proposal but the regulation does not make clear how the proposed
‘bycatch allowance’ provisions will work in practice (i.e. recording and monitoring of catches) and what
safeguards are in place to prevent an increase in fishing mortality on the non-target stocks above
maximum scientifically advised levels. As far as Pew can assess, the footnotes include no requirement to
deduct catches from the TACs set for the non-target species, and this potentially risks increasing fishing
mortality on those non-target stocks above scientifically advised levels, whilst pursuing the target fisheries.
This risks worsening the status of those non-target stocks and undermining the objective of achieving MSY
fishing rates for these stocks. STECF highlighted these risks in their evaluation of the ‘bycatch allowance’
provisions for 201724 and in their previous evaluation of the potential impact of the interspecies flexibility
provisions in the CFP (Article 15(8))25.
d. Conservation measures for European eel
According to ICES advice, catches of European eel should be reduced to zero, or as close to zero as possible
in order to restore the stock and achieve the CFP’s objectives. The Commission proposed to add the
critically endangered European eel stock to the prohibited species list in order to further protect it from
commercial and recreational fishing activities. This would have prohibited the targeting of adult eel in
marine waters all year round.
However, the Council only introduced a provision to temporarily prohibit commercial catches of European
eel (≥12cm in length) in EU waters of the north-east Atlantic and Baltic Sea for a consecutive 3 month
period between 1st September 2018 and 31st January 2019, to be determined by each Member State
22
Introduced in December 2012 for 21 TACs - 5315/13. Expanded in December 2013 to 26 TACs - 5232/14.
23
Sandeel in areas 2a and 4; sprat in area 3a; sprat in areas 4 and 2a; horse mackerel in areas 4b, 4c and 7d; horse mackerel in areas 2a, 4a, 5b, 6,
7a-c, 7e-k, 8abde, 12 and 14; and Norway pout in areas 3a, 4 and 2a.
24
“there is potential to significantly increase the mortality on non-targeted bycatch species to levels inconsistent with achieving FMSY and to the
extent that stock biomass could be reduced below safe biological limits”
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/1780485/STECF+PLEN+17-02.pdf
25
“the provision offers a way of transferring quota from low value/high volume species to low volume/high value species, this potentially provides
helpful economic benefits but carries the risk of elevated mortality on the non-target species”
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/610582/STECF+13-23+-+Landing+obligation+in+EU+Fisheries+-+p1.pdf
7Analysis of Total Allowable Catches set in the north-east Atlantic for 2018
before June 1st 2018. The rationale for the closed periods is to protect spawners during their migration, but
no explanation was provided on why a full prohibition would have been ineffective to achieve this.
Prior to the December Council Pew urged ministers to adopt the Commission proposal by adding European
eel to the prohibited species list and to introduce measures that encourage avoidance, reliable catch
documentation, and improve the survivability of released eel. In Pew’s view, the decision by Council to
introduce a 3 month prohibition does not go far enough to protect the critically endangered eel
population. Because member states are afforded flexibility to define when they will apply their closed
period, there is no guarantee of co-ordinated closures and the protection of eel from commercial
extraction.
e. Conservation measures for the northern European seabass stock
According to ICES advice there should be zero catch (commercial and recreational) of European seabass
from the northern stock (Celtic Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and southern North Sea) in 2018. The Commission
highlighted that the stock continued to decline despite the conservation measures implemented in
previous years, indicating that those measures have not delivered the desired reduction in fishing mortality
(17% instead of the expected 50%)26. In response, the fishing mortality on the northern stock should be
significantly decreased in 2018 to promote a recovery of the stock’s biomass.
For commercial fisheries, the Council decided upon a prohibition of fisheries for seabass, including a 2
month closure (February and March) to protect spawning aggregations, and further constraints on the
derogated catch limits for unavoidable bycatches of seabass using certain types of fishing gears (trawls,
seines, fixed gill nets, hooks and lines) in January and between 1st April and 31st December. Further
restrictions on recreational fishing for the northern stock were also put in place, with only catch-and-
release fishing now being allowed throughout the year.
Pew welcomes further conservation measures for the northern stock. However, it remains to be seen if the
agreed conservation measures will actually deliver the reductions in fishing mortality advised by ICES. The
efficacy of these measures relies on full implementation and effective monitoring, control and
enforcement, and concerns remain about the capacity of national authorities to implement these
measures and monitor their application.
Conclusions
Pew draws the following conclusions on the setting of north-east Atlantic fishing limits for 2018:
There are transparency issues that make it difficult to analyse the extent to which the Council set
fishing limits in line with the scientific advice.
The Commission proposal on fishing opportunities (7th November 2017) was a continued improvement
on previous proposals, but was insufficient to end overfishing, even if it were adopted in full by the
Council.
Fisheries ministers continued to agree a significant number (44 percent) of TACs for 2018 that exceeded
the scientific advice. However, this was a reduction compared to last year (54 percent).
Fisheries ministers made good progress on the number of TACs set at or below advice in relation to the
MSY exploitation rates. However, for the 20 TACs set exceeding that scientific advice neither the
Commission nor any member states publicly presented evidence of socio-economic impacts which is
required to justify postponing the deadline to achieve MSY exploitation rates.
The analysis indicates that for some TACs fully subject to the LO, fishing limits exceed the scientifically
advised levels and that for some other TACs partially subject to the LO this might also be the case.
26
Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 - fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,
applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127.
8Analysis of Total Allowable Catches set in the north-east Atlantic for 2018
The ‘bycatch provisions’ footnotes risk increasing the fishing mortality on the relevant non-target
species above the scientifically advised levels of catches for those stocks.
A 3 month temporary closed period does not go far enough to protect the critically endangered
European eel, where scientific advice was to reduce catches to zero, or as close to zero as possible.
Conservation measures for the northern European seabass stock have been enhanced for 2018 but it
remains unclear whether the measures agreed will actually deliver the reductions in fishing mortality
advised by ICES. The efficacy of these measures relies on full implementation and effective monitoring,
control and enforcement.
Recommendations
Pew issues the following recommendations to improve the setting of north-east Atlantic fishing limits in
future years:
With only two TAC cycles remaining before the CFP’s 2020 deadline is reached, the Council must make
significant progress to set TACs for 2019 and 2020 in line with the CFP’s requirements if it is to realise
the benefits of ending overfishing27.
The Commission should play its part by making proposals for 2019 and 2020 TACs fully in line with the
CFP, and guiding ministers away from their serial short-termism.
The Commission should improve transparency of TAC setting. This includes publishing details on the
methodologies for TAC ‘adjustments’ and for matching scientific advice with TAC areas, and publishing
all “non-papers” with additional TAC proposals.
The Council should publish any socio-economic evidence used to justify delays in reaching MSY, and live
stream at least the initial exchange of views on the setting of fishing opportunities.
The Commission should seek a scientific assessment of the impacts of the ‘bycatch provisions’ on the
sustainability of the non-target stocks and assess the footnotes’ overarching compatibility with setting
fishing limits not exceeding the rate that can produce MSY for those stocks as required by the CFP.
Additional conservation measures should be developed for European eel and seabass in order to
further reduce fishing mortality in line with scientific advice and restore those stocks above levels
capable of producing MSY, as required by Article 2(2) of the CFP.
For more information, please contact:
Andrew Clayton
Project Director, Ending Overfishing in North-western Europe, The Pew Charitable Trusts
Email: AClayton@pewtrusts.org
27
World Bank. 2017. The Sunken Billions Revisited: Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries. Environment and Development.
Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank.
9You can also read
